> I think we should be able to release from master without branching. Having release branches is quite useful if only because we can do per-release fixes while master/ has diverged / refactored that whole area.
--emi ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 26 April 2018 5:08 PM, Wade Chandler <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 and even if we don’t have a “dev” branch, I think we should be able to > release from master without branching. We should be working to stabilize > things near a release, and perhaps we ask folks not to merge new features to > master, but only fixes for a period of time. If we could support feature > flags, then even better, and for new modules and such I think we can through > configuration and clusters, to not have them enabled and included by default, > but not with big new features to existing modules. We would need new switches > in the config file for those. Then new work can be enabled or disabled for a > release depending on how far along it is. > > Either way, I feel master should always build, run, and be as stable as > possible. Now, in this interim phase where we are still trying to get over to > Apache all that is NB, it may be harder or nearly impossible since it is so > much to bring over, but I think that should be our goal going forward once > the “drop” has happened. > > My $0.02, > > Wade > > > ==================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================== > > Wade Chandler > > e: [email protected] > > t: @wadechandler > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/wade-chandler > > > On Apr 17, 2018, at 10:09 AM, Christian Lenz [email protected] wrote: > > > > Master shouldn’t be that one, where the wild development is going on. > > Master should be that one which is already live. > > > > In General, what gitflow does. Wild development is going on on the dev > > branch, for the next release. If whatever is finished, there is a release > > branch. After that, it will merged into master and created a tag. > > > > If this is not possible, then an other solution is that develop stays clean > > and always releasable. You only work on Feature branches. After the Feature > > is finished and ready to go, it will merged into develop. Someday you can > > create a release branch of develop. > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
